3 ms·
What you say, though true, is borderline FUD. As AndrewDucker linked to further down the thread, this report http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-fo
by jonmrodriguez 13y ago
What you say, though true, is borderline FUD.
As AndrewDucker linked to further down the thread, this report http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... shows that nuclear power has the fewest deaths per terrawatt-hour out of any energy source, and coal has the highest.
- yk 13y agoSince the link to the source of the first table in that blog post does not work: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104991518.pdf http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/... (pdf, Wilson &al. IAEA Bulletin 41/1 1999) Additionally, I recall that there are some problems with the estimate. For example it assumes that there are no more major accidents after Chernobyl. And he uses the WHO study, which may underestimate cancer fatalities by an order of magnitude. For a nice discussion of the problems of studies of Chernobyl see: http://allthingsnuclear.org/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/ http://allthingsnuclear.org/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-r...
- jonmrodriguez 13y agoThank you